World's most dominant sports star

**Delbertt** · 21/09/2006, 12:05 PM

I think i'd have to go for Red Rum meself

**the 12 th man** · 21/09/2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Schumi

As fantastic as Senna was, he was never unbeatable as he shared his era with Prost, with the exception of 1991 when Prost was in a dog of a Ferrari.

Maybe so,but before his name change ( from Da Silva) when he was driving in Formula 2000 etc and before his move to F1 he really was unbeatable (showing my age).

**osarusan** · 21/09/2006, 3:39 PM

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

I think Hogan is a good shout, he is recognised the world over, despite of being a star in a marginal sport. He was the king of wrestling in the 80s and early 90s.

So marginal that it is not a sport at all. Whatever the merits of darts/pool etc, at least they are based on competition and the outcome has not been decided beforehand.

Dont get me wrong, WWF/E wrestlers are great athletes, and some of the stuff they do is very dangerous, but that does not make it a sport.

**bennocelt** · 22/09/2006, 8:50 AM

Originally Posted by endabob1

Surely it's Phil Taylor?

thats exactly what i wouldn have said

playing a real game, with real people in real places, and gets to have it off with real jumbo size women too

tiger my arse.the steve davis of golf
tennis!
and lance armstrong was a champ at a sport infested with drugs

so yeah phil taylor has to be the man

**bennocelt** · 22/09/2006, 8:52 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

I have done. I'm quite decent Darts player. My dad was All Ireland doubles champion back in the day and now and agin I enjoy watching it on TV.

Its not a sport though

its mor a sport than tennis
or golf.a good walk runied

**Closed Account 2** · 21/01/2009, 4:13 PM

I'm still going with Hogan on this

**rambler14** · 21/01/2009, 6:29 PM

Shergar.

**rambler14** · 21/01/2009, 6:33 PM

Seriously though:

For this you'd be looking at Phil Taylor or Lance Armstrong or Ronnie O'Sullivan or Tiger Woods, As on their day they are unbeatable in the case of Armstrong WAS unbeatable.

Ronnie O'Sullivan would get my vote though as good with his left hand as with his right hand. Which is truly remarakable!

**gustavo** · 21/01/2009, 6:59 PM

Originally Posted by rambler14

Seriously though:

Ronnie O'Sullivan would get my vote though as good with his left hand as with his right hand. Which is truly remarakable!

Supremely talented , and on his day on a different level to all other players , however I wouldn't describe his career to date as being dominant , His inconsistency has been his downfall , No doubt that he could be dominant over the next couple of years

**Sheridan** · 21/01/2009, 7:30 PM

It's definitely Don Bradman, there's no question about it. No individual has ever dominated a team sport (infinitely more difficult than doing so in an individual sport) the way he did. Bradman's career average was 99.94. The next highest qualifying average is 60.97. In other words, if you expressed the averages of all the qualifying players who have played Test cricket since its inception well over 100 years ago as a pie chart, Bradman would have more than a third of the pie to himself.

For the 1932/33 Ashes series, England devised a tactic called Fast Leg Theory (later christened Bodyline) specifically to counteract Bradman's brilliance. Bodyline was so violent and unsportsmanlike it caused a major diplomatic incident and was even believed to threaten the integrity of the Empire. The tactic was considered a roaring success because Bradman averaged "only" 56.57 for the series.

**BobtheDrog** · 21/01/2009, 8:58 PM

sheridan in terms of cricket, what about jack hobbs. in terms of a bowler shane warne

**Sheridan** · 21/01/2009, 9:17 PM

No way does Hobbs compare to Bradman. He scored almost 200 First Class centuries, but the vast majority of those were in county and tour games. Bradman managed twice as many Test centuries in fewer Tests.

Warne may well be the greatest bowler ever (top three anyway), but his dominance was nowhere near as complete as Bradman's in his class. Plus, Warne's bowling average against India is as high as ~50!

**kingdom hoop** · 21/01/2009, 9:40 PM

Originally Posted by Sheridan

Bradman's career average was 99.94.

Not meaning to take away from a phenomenal record, but how excruciatingly close to the century! (Though I do like the number 9 so I think it's charming in a way.)
Would they have been into averages and statistics and stuff back when he played? As in - would he have precisely known his record in his lifetime? Do you know what he got in his last few matches and whether they dragged him below the three-figure average?

**Sheridan** · 21/01/2009, 9:55 PM

He was aware of it, it was big news at the time. Before the advent of ubiquitous broadcast media, the public naturally put more store by statistics.

Bradman famously required only four runs in his final innings at The Oval in 1948 to finish with an average of 100 but was bowled second ball for 0 by a googly from the mediocre English legspinner Eric Hollies. The story that Bradman missed the delivery because he still had tears in his eyes from the guard of honour which had greeted him as he came out to bat is a contemporary fiction. 99.94 is an iconic number in Australia for this reason.

**Bluebeard** · 21/01/2009, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by rambler14

Seriously though:
As on their day they are unbeatable in the case of Armstrong WAS unbeatable.

Not really, if you look at things more closely. He focused on one race a year and did completely dominate it, but didn't really attempt any other race. While the Tour is the great stage race in cycling, there are others. For my money, for dominance in cycling it would be Eddy Mercxx. He won almost everything for about 8 years, regularly winning a couple of the grand tours in a single year. The didn't call him the cannibal for nothing. After him, only Kelly or Hinault were close. Armstrong is a great and signifcant cyclist (and I fear he might tarnish his name by the second come back), but the greatest, no.

For my money, I'd agree with the view that the most dominant was Don Bradman. I'm not a cricket man, but he really was untouchable during his career. 0.06 off a century average. Stunning.

**Sheridan** · 21/01/2009, 11:01 PM

As the old clerihew goes; "Sir Donald Bradman/Would have been a very glad man/If his Test average had been 0.06 more/Than 99.94."

**endabob1** · 22/01/2009, 6:53 AM

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

I'm still going with Hogan on this

I'm embarrassed for you

**Closed Account 2** · 22/01/2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Sheridan

He was aware of it, it was big news at the time. Before the advent of ubiquitous broadcast media, the public naturally put more store by statistics.

Bradman famously required only four runs in his final innings at The Oval in 1948 to finish with an average of 100 but was bowled second ball for 0 by a googly from the mediocre English legspinner Eric Hollies. The story that Bradman missed the delivery because he still had tears in his eyes from the guard of honour which had greeted him as he came out to bat is a contemporary fiction. 99.94 is an iconic number in Australia for this reason.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Hollies there. While he wasn't world class I think his level was a touch above mediocre. He was more than a solid and dependable spinner when required, cricketer of the year in the 1950s. He could bowl for virtually half a day if required and regularly bowled over 50 overs in first class cricket matches. He was hopless with the bat though, far too wild.

I think one of the stands at Edgebaston is named after him, or was named after him and has now been renamed.